Vol 25, No 4 (2019)

EDITORIAL

Editorial

Tikhilov R.M., Bozhkova S.A.

Abstract

Editorial.

Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia. 2019;25(4):7-8
pages 7-8 views

ARTICLES

What Has Changed in the Structure of Revision Hip Arthroplasty?

Shubnyakov I.I., Tikhilov R.M., Denisov A.O., Akhmedilov M.A., Cherny A.Z., Totoev Z.A., Javadov A.A., Karpukhin A.S., Muravyeva Y.V.

Abstract

The key aspects of the study: 1) what has changed in the structure of revisions in recent years? 2) what is the spectrum of reasons for revision after primary hip arthroplasty and re-revision? 3) what are the demographic features of patients’ population undergoing the revision? Materials and methods. The authors conducted a retrospective evaluation of 2415 hip revision cases during the period of time from 2014 until 2018. Separately the authors assessed revisions after primary surgeries and re-revisions as well as the group of early revisions. Results. In the period from 2014 until 2018 the overall share of revisions was 16,6% from all total hip arthroplasties, at the same time the authors reported the absolute 1.7 times increase in number of revisions as well as increased share of revisions in the total structure of hip arthroplasty from 12,5% to 18,9% without significant variances in the number of primary procedures. The share of early revisions increased from 32.9% in 2013 to 56.7% while the number of early revisions amounted to 37.4% of all primary revisions. Gender composition in primary and revision hip arthroplasty varied insignificantly. Mean age at the moment of hip revision was 59.2% (95% CI from 58.7 to 59.7; Me 60 years) which is slightly less than in primary replacement — 60.2 years (95% CI from 58.9 to 61.1; Me 62 years), but such variances had a high statistical significance, р<0.001. The main reasons for primary revisions were aseptic loosening of prosthesis components (50.3%), infection (27.6%), polyethylene wear and osteolysis (9.0%) as well as dislocations (6,2%). Re-revisions structure featured prevalence of infection (69.0%), aseptic loosening (20.8%) and dislocations (7,8%). Mean period of time after primary hip arthroplasty to revision was 7.9 years (95% CI from 7.7 to 8.2; Me 7.3), to first re-revision — 2.9 (95% CI from 2.6 to 3.2; Me 1.2), to second re-revision — 2.2 (95% CI from 1.8 to 2.7; Me 1.1), to third — 2,2 (95% CI from 1.7 to 2.8; Me 1.1), to fourth — 1.0 (95% CI from 0.6 to 1.3; Me 0.6), remaining cases demonstrated rather high heterogeneity. Conclusion. In the result of the present study the authors observed increased number of all revision hip arthroplasties, especially the share of early revisions within first five years from the moment of previous surgery. The most often reason for revision after primary hip arthroplasty was aseptic loosening of one or both components of prosthesis. Infection was the absolute leader in the group of re-revisions constituting over half of all reasons for secondary intervention.
Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia. 2019;25(4):9-27
pages 9-27 views

Who Should Manage Periprosthetic Joint Infection? The Case for a Multidisciplinary Approach

Yacovelli S., Parvizi J.

Abstract

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is a complex disease state that is quite devastating to those affected. Improvement in diagnostic testing modalities and therapeutic techniques have led to significant advances in treatment for patients, but there is still a considerable gap in treatment success across providers and institutions. Where and who should be treating cases of PJI remains a debated topic. Many experts have proposed a new treatment model not dissimilar to that with which has been used to treat other complex disease states such as cancer for decades, and there is now a growing body of evidence to support such a strategy is superior. In this article, we evaluate the current body of literature on the topic and offer recommendations for the ideal treatment model for PJI: the multidisciplinary approach.
Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia. 2019;25(4):28-32
pages 28-32 views

Treatment of Periprosthetic Infection: Where and Who?

Sereda A.P., Bogdan V.N., Andrianova M.A., Berenstein M.

Abstract

The present work is dedicated to analysis and comparison of national and international practice standards for treatment of periprosthetic infection within a context of treatment center and speciality of physicians. The authors made a partial review of medical and legal issues related to the studied topic by the example of Russian Federation, Germany, USA, England. 118 orthopaedic surgeons were surveyed via internet aiming to evaluate the current medical practice in treatment of patients with periprosthetic infection. Survey demonstrated that there are clinical and organizational complexities in the medical care system for patients with PJI. Most often the responders reported difficulties in the medical succession and see the potential solution through creation of a network of large specialized centers. Resulting was the conclusion that physicians of all specialities should be involved in treatment of patients with periprosthetic infection. Treatment scope depends on professionalism of a physician and technical equipment of the clinic and should correspond to the best clinical practices (treatment protocols). Thus, a rapid routing of patient into more specialized hospitals. Implementation of such approach is possible with careful balancing between the quality of medical care and its proximity to the patient.
Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia. 2019;25(4):33-55
pages 33-55 views

New Methods in the Diagnosis of Prosthetic Joint Infection

Karbysheva S., Renz N., Yermak K., Cabric S., Trampuz A.

Abstract

A timely and accurate diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is crucial to plan adequate treatment. Purpose of the study. To evaluate the performance of new diagnostic tests for the diagnosis of PJI. Material and Methods. The performance of novel biomarkers in synovial fluid (i.e. D-lactate and alfa-defensin), molecular test (i.e. PCR of synovial fluid and sonication fluid), new methods to dislodge biofilm from implant surface (i.e. MicroDTTect) and sonication of explanted prosthesis were investigated in patients with PJI and aseptic loosening of the prosthesis. Results. D-lactate showed better sensitivity for the diagnosis of PJI compared to leukocyte count (86% and 80%, respectively). The optimal D-lactate cut-off value was calculated at 1.26 mmol/l. The ADLF test showed sensitivity of 84%, 67% and to 54% depending on classification criteria used for the diagnosis of PJI (Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS), The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and proposed European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS) criteria, respectively). Using the proposed EBJIS definition criteria, the sensitivity of the leukocyte count was significantly higher than that of the ADLF test (86% compared with 54%; p<0,001), particularly in chronic PJI (81% compared with 44%, respectively; p<0,001). The sensitivity of synovial fluid PCR was 60% and herewith comparable with synovial fluid culture (52%, p = 0,239). The sensitivity and specificity of sonication fluid culture were 58% and 100%, which was comparable to sonication fluid PCR 51% and 94%, respectively. DTT-based method showed low sensitivity for diagnosis of PJI (40%) compared to sonication (80%, p<0,01). Conclusion. Synovial fluid D-lactate demonstrated good analytical performance and diagnostic value for the diagnosis of PJI. In particular, the high sensitivity for diagnosing infection and rapid availability of the test result make synovial fluid D-lactate suitable as screening test, whereas ADLF had limited sensitivity (54%) but high specificity (>95%) and it should therefore not be used for screening, but rather as a confirmatory test for PJI. Multiplex PCR of synovial fluid and sonication fluid has similar sensitivity and specificity compared to synovial fluid culture, having the advantage of rapid availability of results (within 5 hours) and fully automated process. With further improvement of its performance and inclusion of additional primers, multiplex PCR may complement conventional cultures, especially for rapid and accurate diagnosis of low-grade PJI. Culture of samples obtained by sonication of prostheses showed better sensitivity for the microbiologic diagnosis of prosthetic hip and knee infection compared to chemical based dislodgement such as MicroDTTect.

Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia. 2019;25(4):56-63
pages 56-63 views

Local Antibacterial Implant Protection in Orthopedics and Trauma: What’s New?

Romanò C.L., Bozhkova S.A., Artyukh V., Romanò D., Tsuchiya H., Drago L.

Abstract

Current prophylactic and hygienic measures notwithstanding, implant-related infection remains among leading reasons for failure in orthopaedics and trauma surgery, resulting in extremely high social and economic costs. Various antibacterial coating technologies have been proven safe and effective both in preclinical and in clinical settings and able to reduce post-surgical infections up to 90%, depending on the type of the coating and on the experimental setup. In spite of this findings, the widespread use of these technologies is still limited by several factors. After reviewing the latest evidence on currently available antibacterial coatings, an algorithm is proposed to calculate the impact of the delayed introduction of these technologies in the clinical practice. When applied to joint arthroplasties, our calculator shows that each year of delay to implement an antibacterial coating, able to reduce post-surgical infection by 80% at a final user’s cost price of €600, causes an estimated 35 200 new cases of periprosthetic joint infection in Europe and additional annual hospital costs of approximately €440 million. Faster and more affordable regulatory pathways for antibacterial coating technologies and an adequate reimbursement policy for their clinical use appear a feasible solution to mitigate the impact of implant-related infections and may benefit patients, healthcare systems, and related research.

All patients provided written informed consent.

Competing interests: the authors declare that there are no competing interests.

Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia. 2019;25(4):64-74
pages 64-74 views

Importance of the Algorithm for Diagnosis of Late Deep Periprosthetic Hip Infection

Kukovenko G.A., Elizarov P.M., Alekseev S.S., Sorokina G.L., Ivanenko L.R., Erokhin N.E., Muzychenkov A.V., Murylev V.Y.

Abstract

Relevance. Late deep periprosthetic infection (PJI) of the hip joint is a serious complication after arthroplasty which takes the lead among the world reasons for revision. Accurate diagnostics allows to achieve good results and select a proper treatment tactics. Purpose of the study — to evaluate the efficiency of diagnostics algorithm for late deep PJI and impact of the microbial landscape on the risk of infection recurrence. Materials and methods. The authors evaluated two groups of patients who underwent revision in the period from 2002 to 2014 and from 2015 to 2018. The first (retrospective) group included 144 patients who were not diagnosed for late deep PJI. The second (prospective) group included 157 patients who underwent detailed diagnostics for late deep PJI based on the algorithm including the analysis of x-rays, pelvic CT, triple evaluation of ESR and CRP, puncturing of affected joint and microbiology examination. The authors assessed the microbial landscape in 51 patients with late deep hip PJI. Results. In the first group 12 patients (8.3%) underwent sanation and spacer insertion during first stage of treatment, 46 patients (59.7%) after revision demonstrated positive intraoperative cultures confirming septic etiology of implant loosening, 19 patients (24.67%) had no flora growth, and no intraoperative microbiological examination was done for remaining 67 patients (46.52%). In the second group after detailed diagnostics 51 patients (32.4%) underwent removal of prosthesis and spacer insertion in the first stage, other 13 patients (8.2%) featured flora growth after revision, remaining 93 patients (59.2%) had no flora growth after revision. Recurrent PJI was observed in 21 patients (14.5%) in the first group, and in 10 patients (6.3%) in the second group. In the second group recurrent PJI was reported in 40% of patients due to microbial associations, in 30% — due to MRSA, in 20% — due to culture negative bacteria and in 10% — due to S. aureus. Conclusion. Triple examination allows to obtain an accurate diagnosis and isolate the pathogen for deep PJI. Application of such diagnostics algorithm allows to reduce 2.1 times the risk of recurrent deep PJI and to scale down 4 times the detection of type IV infection by Coventry–Tsukayama classification.
Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia. 2019;25(4):75-87
pages 75-87 views

Difficult-To-Treat Periprosthetic Hip Infection: Outcomes of Debridment

Liventsov V.N., Bozhkova S.A., Kochish A.Y., Artyukh V.A., Razorenov V.L., Labutin D.V.

Abstract

Purpose of the study — to compare management efficiency for difficult-to-treat periprosthetic hip joint infection (PJI) during resection arthroplasty with grafting by vastus lateralis pedicle island flap in comparison with insertion of an antimicrobial-loaded cement spacer. Material and Methods. 132 patients were included into the retrospective study who underwent treatment from 2012 until 2018 including removal of orthopaedic implant, radical surgical debridement of infection focus, resection arthroplasty with grafting by vastus lateralis pedicle island muscle flap (PMF group — 57 patients) or insertion of antibacterial-loaded cement spacer (AMS group — 75 patients). The authors examined medical histories, nature of infection process, infection agent type, laboratory data in respect of systemic inflammation, size of bone defects, follow up status and remission of PJI in the late period. Results. 89.4% of patients (n = 51) who underwent grafting by vastus lateralis pedicle island flap had a history of 3 and more prior surgical procedures in the same area. At the same time the share of such patients in the spacer group was only 38.6% (n = 29) (p<0.0001) while the share of patients with two and more recurrences was 78.9% (n = 45) and 25.3% (n = 19), respectively (p<0.0001). No significant variances were observed between the groups in respect of type composition of PJI microbial infection agents. The infection in a vast majority of patients in both groups was caused by microbial association: 77.2% and 72.0% in PMF and AMS groups, respectively. In the early postoperative period secondary revision of surgical site was performed in 35% and 28% of cases in PMF group (n = 20) and AMS group (n = 21), respectively, including due to recurrent infection in 15.8% and 28% of cases, respectively. Stable remission of difficult-to-treat PJI in PMF group was 96.5% and 45.3% in AMS group. Conclusion. Despite some cases that required secondary revisions in early postoperative period the resection arthroplasty in combination with pedicle muscle flap can be considered a surgery of choice for management of recurrent difficultto-treat PJI with feasible re-implantation of prosthesis against the stable remission of infection.
Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia. 2019;25(4):88-97
pages 88-97 views

Treatment of Periprosthetic Infection with Silver-Doped Implants Based on Two-Dimensionally Ordered Linear Chain Carbon

Nikolaev N.S., Lyubimova L.V., Pchelova N.N., Preobrazhenskaya E.V., Alekseeva A.V.

Abstract

Relevance. Formation of pan-resistance microorganisms, microbial biofilms on implants and recurrent infection rate stimulate the search for optimal prosthesis materials for treatment of periprosthetic infection (PJI). Purpose of the study — to compare the efficiency of two stage PJI treatment with simultaneous implantation of a spacer in combination with implants with silver-doped coatings based on two-dimensionally ordered linear chain carbon (TDOLCC+Ag) during the first stage and the conventional revision with a spacer only. Materials and methods. The study included 72 patients with PJI of the knee (n = 42) and hip (n = 30) joints. Control group (conventional revision) consisted of 35 patients and the main group (TDOLCC+Ag coated implant incorporated in a spacer) — 37 patients. Mean age of the patients was 61 years. Temporary components were replaced by the final components during revision at the second stage. Evaluation methods: clinical, X-ray, laboratory, microbiological and follow up history. Results. Inflammation markers and synovial fluid cytosis in the groups at the first revision stage featured equal high base values. During the second stage leucocyte count and cytosis reached normal values, ESR decreased twofold in both groups, CRP decreased five times in the main group. Throat and nasal swabs demonstrated growth of Staphylococcus aureus at 24,3-32,4% in both groups. The leading inducer of PJI was staphylococcal flora with MRSA share of 7,1% and MRSE — from 62,5 to 66,7%. End-points of evaluating treatment outcomes were revision spacer implantation at the second stage of sanation and recurrent PJI. Control group featured implantation of more revision spacers (5) as compared to the main group (1) after the treatment. Two recurrent PJIs were reported for the control group in 11 months while no recurrent infection was reported for the main group. Conclusion. The study demonstrated statistically significant improvement in the outcomes of PJI treatment by spacers with implants coated by TDOLCC+Ag as compared to the conventional treatment option.
Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia. 2019;25(4):98-108
pages 98-108 views

Two-Stage Treatment of Periprostetic Infection: Mid-Term Results

Pavlov V.V., Petrova N.V., Sheraliev T.U.

Abstract

Purpose — to evaluate the efficiency of two-stage revision arthroplasty performed according to a standardized protocol by a multidisciplinary surgical team. Materials and Methods. 87 patients with deep periprosthetic hip and knee joint infection (PJI) were included into the prospective study. The patients were admitted to the clinic in the period from January 2012 until December 2014 and underwent two-stage revision procedure. First stage included removal of infected implant and insertion of a cemented spacer, second stage — re-implantation of a prosthesis. Results. Re-implantation of a prosthesis was performed in 89.7% (95% CI 82.8–95.4) of cases. Infection recurrence rate was 13.8% (95% CI 6.9–20.7) and 12.8% (95% CI 6.4–21.8) after the first and the second stage, respectively. Overall efficiency of two-stage procedure was 80,5% (95% CI 71.3–88.5) with a median of 4.7 year follow up. Conclusion. Rate of re-implantation, recurrent infection and newly occurred infection should be taken into consideration for evaluation of treatment efficiency. Application of single criteria for assessment of successful treatment outcomes will allow to compare various studies. Positive microbiological tests during the second stage of procedure are not a risk factor for recurrent infection but can be caused by contamination of specimens.
Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia. 2019;25(4):109-116
pages 109-116 views

Treatment Outcomes of Periprosthetic Joint Infection in HIV-positive Patients

Tryapichnikov A.S., Ermakov A.M., Klyushin N.M., Ababkov Y.V., Stepanayn A.B., Koyushkov A.N.

Abstract

Relevance. There is a limited number of publications reporting outcomes of primary large joint arthroplasty in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The authors were unable to find papers on revision arthroplasty in patients with periprosthetic infection. Purpose of the study — to evaluate short term outcomes after revision arthroplasty in HIV-positive patients with periprosthetic infection of the hip and knee joint. Materials and methods. 13 HIV-positive patients with periprosthetic infection of the hip (10 cases) and knee (3 cases) joint underwent treatment in the period from 2015 to 2019. Patients were examined by clinical, laboratory and roentgenological methods. Harris Hip Score and Knee Society Score were used for evaluation prior to and after the surgery. Results. Mean follow up period was 21,4±2,6 months. Successful two-stage treatment was performed in two (15,4%) out of 13 patients with periprosthetic infection. In 5 cases (38,5%) control over infection was achieved by resection arthroplasty, and in one case (7,7%) – by arthrodesis. Five patients (38,5%) refused from interchange of spacer to prosthesis. Mean Harris Hip score demonstrated insignificant increase postoperatively — from 45,3±2,2 to 52,2±4,15 (р = 0,2). Conclusion. Despite following the international protocols for treatment of implant-associated infection the infection recurrence rate in HIV-positive patients in the asymptomatic phase remains very high. Efficiency of twostage treatment using antibacterial spacers in the present group of patients amounted only to 15,4%.

Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia. 2019;25(4):117-125
pages 117-125 views

Risk Factors for Infectious Complications after Surgical Treatment of Spinal Metastases in Patients with Breast and Kidney Cancer

Smekalenkov O.A., Ptashnikov D.A., Zaborovskii N.S., Mikhaylov D.A., Masevnin S.V., Denisov A.A.

Abstract

Relevance. In patients with the most common malignant new growth such as breast, kidney and lung cancer the rate of spinal metastases amounts to 70%. Increasing number of surgical procedures results in growing frequency of postoperative complications including surgical site infection (SSI) which do not only deteriorate the quality of patient’s life but change the timelines for renewal of therapy for the primary disease. Study design — case control study. Purpose of the study — to identify key risk factors as well as impact of tumor therapy on development of infectious complications in patients with breast and kidney cancer after surgical management of metastatic spine lesion. Materials and Methods. The authors collected and compiled the data on 2023 oncological patients who underwent specialized neuroorthopaedic treatment in the period from 2000 until 2017 due to tumor spine lesions. Inclusion criteria: malignant breast and kidney tumors with spine metastases, continued systemic tumor therapy, decompression and stabilization spine surgery irrespective of used implants. Patients that corresponded to inclusion criteria were divided into two groups. The first (main) group included patients (n = 22) with infectious complications after surgery. The second (control) group (n = 23) was formed by propensity score matching. Results. The analysis of obtained data resulted in identification of severe significant factors (р<0.05): diabetes mellitus, postoperative liquorrhea, certain classes by ASA (3, 4) and ECOG (2, 3, 4) scales, volume of blood loss, time of surgery and type of tumor therapy. However, the three latter have the highest statistical significance (р<0.01): surgical factors (blood loss volume and time of procedure) and type of tumor therapy. Conclusion. Postoperative SSI remains a common severe complication after surgeries due to metastatic spine lesions. The causes of postoperative infection after tumor resection are compromised immune status of the patient; long time of procedure with heavy blood loss and adjuvant tumor therapy.
Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia. 2019;25(4):126-133
pages 126-133 views

Fungal Periprosthetic Infection after Total Knee Arthroplasty (Case Report and Review)

Bozhkova S.A., Ivanov P.P., Zemlyanskaya E.A., Kornilov N.N.

Abstract

The rate of periprosthetic infection (PJI) following primary total knee arthroplasty ranges from 0,5 to 6%, while after the revision arthroplasty PJI rate grows up to 13,6%. Despite the fact that PJI is more often caused by gram-positive microorganisms, the treatment of patients induced by gram-negative pathogens and fungi is the most complex and associated with the higher recurrence rate. This paper presents a positive two-stage treatment of a patient with fungal periprosthetic infection with a review of current medical literature. Revision, sanation of infection site and implantation of articulating antibacterial spacer was performed in the first stage of treatment. The second stage, which was the implantation of a revision prosthesis, followed in 6 months after removal of infection nidus. Subsequently the authors obtained good functional outcomes and stopping the infection process.
Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia. 2019;25(4):134-140
pages 134-140 views

Early Deep Periprosthetic Hip Infection of Odontogenic Origin (Case Report)

Sheraliev T.U., Pavlov V.V., Kretien S.O., Fedorov E.A., Kirilina S.I.

Abstract

Deep periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a severe complication after primary and revision hip joint arthroplasty resulting in multiple interventions on the joint. The present paper describes a rare case of early deep hip PJI of odontogenic etiology. The patient suffered from early PJI after a planned procedure of left hip joint arthroplasty. Antibacterial therapy without surgical debridement was performed in an outpatient unit which resulted in a late, on day 12th after surgery, admittance of the patient to hospital with continued administration of antibiotics. Treatment tactics was selected upon patient’s admission basing on patient complaints, medical history of the disease, clinical signs and findings of roentgenological, laboratory and bacteriological examinations. Two-stage treatment consisting of revision, removal of implant, debridement, biopsy and wound drainage by a swab was performed and followed by empiric antibacterial therapy (for 5 days). Targeted antibacterial therapy was prescribed basing on bacteriological test findings. Together with dentists the authors examined oral cavity of the patient, identified a site of chronic infection and undertook the focused treatment by dental extraction and sanitation of the oral cavity. Postoperative period after the first stage was uncomplicated. Second stage of revision (re-arthroplasty of left hip joint) was performed on week 36 of the surgical time-out with a good clinical outcome: 80 points on Harris hip score in 40 weeks after the second stage. Presented clinical case illustrates the existence of hematogenous mechanism of postoperative microorganism dissemination from the chronic infection nidus with subsequent progression of inflammation at the surgical site, including PJI. In the present case the Actinomyces odontolyticus was isolated from periprosthetic tissues and parodontal recesses which allowed the authors to suggest a highly probable cause for early PJI by Actinomyces odontolyticus translocation into periprosthetic tissues of the hip joint. However, strain sequencing is required for the complete verification. The described case confirms the need for debridement of chronic infection nidus prior to joint arthroplasty aiming at prevention of hematogenous periprosthetic infection.
Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia. 2019;25(4):141-149
pages 141-149 views

OBITUARY

Nikolai V. Kornilov

Editorial A.

Abstract

Nikolai V. Kornilov.
Traumatology and Orthopedics of Russia. 2019;25(4):150
pages 150 views

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies